• socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Right, the French authorities are going to present evidence that this dude was aware of specific illegal activity and refuse to comply with a legal warrant involving said actively, making him guilty of obstruction at best, and possibly conspiracy. Signal complies with warrants, they just don’t have anyone’s keys. Telegram has everyone’s keys, and theoretically could turn them over but they refuse. That’s a huge difference from a legal perspective.

    • unconfirmedsourcesDOTgov@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 months ago

      Thank you. I’m going to restate your explanation to be sure I’ve got it:

      • authorities want platforms to comply with legal requests
      • when Signal gets a subpoena, they open the key locker and show that it’s empty. They provide the metadata they can (sign up date and last seen date, full stop) and tell authorities they can’t do better.
      • when Telegram gets a subpoena, they open the key locker and show all the keys, then slam it shut in the face of the investigator, telling them to get bent.
      • conclusion: it’s easier to never have the keys in the first place than to tease the government with them
      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s easier, but Telegram’s authors are from Russia. They psychologically can’t accept that “never have the keys” thing. They want to have control and they want to be able to tell “yes” to the investigator, possibly for something in return.